Veynod

Register Parts

register_parts

For content that was split by hand (e.g. to fit an old size limit): writes
parts / part_of / part_index frontmatter without moving any content, so
dereference(parent, expand_parts=true) returns the joined body.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "parent_ref": "<parent_ref>",
      "part_refs": "<part_refs>"
    },
    "name": "register_parts"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`part_refs`	Yes
`parent_ref`	Yes
`idempotency_key`	No	Optional. Retries with the same key and arguments within 24 h replay the first result (replayed=true) without a second write; a different body with the same key is idempotency_key_reused.
`session_batch_id`	No

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedNov 3, 2026

TDQS

A3.9/5.0

Behavior3/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations declare non-read-only and non-destructive; the description adds real value by specifying which frontmatter keys are written (parts / part_of / part_index) and that no content is moved. It does not disclose what happens on re-registration of an already-registered parent or whether existing frontmatter is overwritten.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the action and scope, then the motivation, then the concrete side effect. Nothing is redundant.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness3/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

An output schema and annotations exist, so return values and safety are covered, but for a four-parameter mutation tool the description omits conflict/replacement behavior and the meaning of the two undocumented parameters. It is enough to call the tool in the happy path but not enough to predict edge-case behavior.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 25%, with only idempotency_key self-documented, so the description should compensate more than it does. It does convey that part_refs is order-significant ("ordered parts") and that parent_ref is the join target, but session_batch_id and part_refs' string format (IDs vs paths) are left unexplained.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb and resource ("Register existing documents as the ordered parts of parent_ref") and contrasts with the consumption-side sibling, dereference(parent, expand_parts=true). An agent can distinguish this from append_entries or write_continuation without opening the schema.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Gives a clear triggering condition: content that was split by hand, e.g. to fit an old size limit. It implicitly excludes agent-generated continuations but never names the alternative tool to use for those, and offers no guidance on what to do when parts are already registered.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

All Veynod tools Inspect

Try in Browser

One endpoint for every MCP toolRayrun runs every MCP server behind one URL and holds the credentials. Each call is decided per client, tool, and argument, then recorded.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.